I have not forgotten about this, have just been thinking it over.

I am a little hesitant about a tiered structure for the Marine list however I have one in mind - not sure what it does for the list however.

My main interest is seeing Tactical Marines used, however I do not wish to restrict the list if I can help it.

So not forgotten, just sitting there for the moment till I get the gumption to move this again... should not be too long

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

First page updated with the latest version (V0.5)

I have given the list much thought over this absence and have come up with the following changes:

- remove Dreadnought formation
- take Whirlwinds back to a 4 formation as a base and allow the whirlwind upgrade for the additional 2 (+125 points) for the signature 6 that we are going for
- allow the force to garrison to Firebases and not just objectives (all other garrison rules as normal)

Reason for the changes
1. Dreadnought formation is something I really disagree with for this list so I guess I am taking some poetic licence in making this change
2. Whirlwind change is two-fold; bring some points back and also keeping it in line with a base vanilla list with the option of that little extra if required
3. Firebase garrison to offset the lack of 'fast attack' in the list and to show a dedicated and well ordered defence which the IF are known for.

I feel the changes (or lack of) reinforce the defence aspects of the list. While a General could opt for lesser activations (mass of terminators and vehicles), I do not think that the army will play as effective as a Vanilla Marine list for that same purpose.

To get the most out of the list (I hope), the General will concentrate on the troop and activation aspect of the list and find that while defending the 'they shall not pass' aspect of a GT, they will need a push forward (assault Marines, Terminators, or transports) to secure a win by moving some forces forward. With the lack of air assaults and round 1 or 2 drops, I do believe the list will force a mud Marine game which was a large part of the reason for putting this list together.


Things that I am aware of:
- The force can generate quite a lot of ground based AA. I would like playtests for this as I do not think it will be a problem for mud marines to protect themselves and it can get quite expensive.
- You cannot fit all formations of LV and AV in a Firebase. I am fine with this at present
- Siege Dreadnoughts may be seen as useless. Not sure if anything needs to be done at this point. They are still good for an assault if used as such.
- I have 2 extra special rules at the top of the page. I am not fussed as neither should confuse the player or the opponent
- There is a deficiency of AT in this list. This is a concern and may require a review based on playtests


Let's see how we go with a few playtests from here. I should have one as early as this week.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I'm less and less keen on the optional sizes for the vehicle formations.
Feels like the Imperial Fists would stick to more "regulation" sizes.

How about fixing both Vindicators and Whirlwinds at 6?

6 Vindicators for 300pts
6 Whirlwinds for 400pts


Also, you still have Whirlwind Castellans in the reference sheet.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not sure I see the point of specifically allowing garrisoning in the firebase. Assuming you're using the siegemasters rules, the firebase itself will be garrisoned near an objective or placed in the deployment zone. Wherever it's placed, a formation will already be able to garrison in it, as it has to be placed in a legally garrisonable position anyway...

Ah. The idea was for Firebases to be set up on the player's side of the table as a terrain feature to represent the IF's (supposedly) superior form of defence.

If not set up near objectives, they will eventually have to leave these to try and win the game anyway.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I understand that. The list has to go through playtests anyway, and what you are proposing is an easy change.

I think at this stage, it is better to open the list up a bit and see what happens with force selections and games.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Why wouldn't the IF player set them up near objectives even if they could be placed freely? The existing mechanics for placing fortifications work perfectly well imho, and a free placement system could lead to some real gameyness with minefields, such as a strip across the entire board.

They'll have to leave them to win anyway, as they really need to grab objectives in the enemy's half.

It works fine for siegemasters and krieg, I don't see a need for a change.

Because those are the lesser DTF objectives, placed by the opponent? By allowing free placement, the Fist player is able to place firebases near their own Take and Hold objectives.

Whether that's too good a thing or not, I'm not sure. But it's a valid reason for wanting free placement.

Morgan Vening

QFT.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I will play test it. Not sure about a line of mines - perhaps a restriction or reduction in size, yet still have to see how it is 'gamey'. If other lists can have special situations and rules that presumably highlight how they are different *cough*, then I do not see a real problem with the rule of placing the mines and Firebases as a single terrain piece away from the objective markers.

As anything, playtests will show if it is a problem.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Honestly, the current official rules rules for placing fortifications work fine, and it makes no sense to go inventing your own special rules.
It just muddies the waters, making what should be an elegant game more complicated for no gain that I can see.

What do you expect to gain for the theme or play style of the army list by changing the way in which fortifications and minefields are deployed?

If you can't find a good answer to that question, then you really shouldn't be doing it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Happy to talk about it. My main example are objectives placed at table edges.

Is is not reasonable to suggest that a Firebase be set up 30cm from an objective with a LoS to it where a devastator formation looks over it? Alternatively an attack on the Firebase itself could invariable place the formation out of position to then gain the objective. It may also assist the IF player to set up further forward and in a more strategic position to gain other objectives rather than a DTF.

Also, in the above examples, it allows the IF not to be misplaced when they can set up a kill zone for the enemy to pass through. Invariably, this is what the IF are meant to be known for, defence. I do not take defence as merely sitting on an objective with greater numbers, but rather a strategic deployment to best protect and then secure an objective.

We are only talking minimal differences here (15-30cm at a point I would guess) so is it really that much of an issue? As for muddying of the waters, can people here honestly place their hands on their hearts and state that all special rules in various lists are any more justified?

I get it. I know what is being said. I just do not see what the big deal is. After my first game I will probably see how silly the rule is, yet I may also see that it is a viable alternative.

It's something I am willing to test out so no biggy yeah? If anything, it encourages people to think about Firebases. Has it been proven to be broken in the past?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

From Siege



I just see it as quite limiting for the IF who are supposed to be the be-all and end-all of the defensive last stand. Could they not strategise beyond the simple objective placement?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

If it's only a minimal difference, then you really don't need to be inventing your own unique special rule.

There's already a special rule existant for placing fortifications/razorwire type stuff, which is used in at least 4 different lists IIRC (Siegemasters, Krieg, Mossinians, Cadians). Changing it without even testing it first seems mary-sueish.


That is *not* an argument in favour of making Epic less elegant.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes. And all Imperial Guard forces who, in literature that I have read, are awestruck by the appearance of Marines and how they tackle the battlefield.

Once again, I see the IF using tactics over and beyond the simple designs of the IG.

The whole idea of a deployment zone is strained at best. So why set up all your army and defences and fight the war from the command tent? It is preposterous. What does make sense is to set your forces up ahead of the tank line to combat the INF approach towards the greater gun line. What real purpose do trenchworks serve in a deployment zone?

The IG are made to sit back and shoot. Marines are not. So what would make anyone think that they would want to fight in a Firebase on their own back line when they could stop the advance further up the table in a strategic position of their choosing, with the support of their Whirlwinds and to an effect, their Vindicators?



It is not Mary Sue, it is common sense. How is it any less elegant? If anything, it is more-so as it does not suffer the strictures of placement imposed by Siege.

Also, by your reckoning, it has been tested; in 4 lists. If so, then why not test an alternative for a different force that fights the battle in a different manner?

I really do reject the use of Mary Sue titles and such. It is a real downer for development. In trying to create something new/different, I am no doubt going to come across objection. That is fine. It does however get a bit old when the objection for any idea posed is for no better reason than "because".

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats